Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[AFRINIC-rpd] New Policy Proposal: Inter RIR IPv4 Address Transfers (AFPUB-2013-V4-001-DRAFT-01)

Andrew Alston alston.networks at
Wed Jan 16 19:26:19 UTC 2013

Hi Owen,

It will be interesting to see if this position holds true in court, which is
where I believe one of these days it will be heading.  The money involved is
simply to great for it not to end up there eventually, and the court rulings
on it could be different region to region.  Until such time as this is heard
in a court of law, the power of an RIR over legacy assets cannot actually be
ascertained, and while you and I have differing points of view on this,
neither of us can actually say for certain how this would go.  I guess only
time will tell :)


-----Original Message-----
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 9:21 PM
To: Andrew Alston
Cc: Jackson Muthili; Chad; AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List; Ernest -
Subject: Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] New Policy Proposal: Inter RIR IPv4 Address
Transfers (AFPUB-2013-V4-001-DRAFT-01)

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 16, 2013, at 6:22 AM, "Andrew Alston" <alston.networks at>

> Except, I would argue that we do not need policy (and indeed cannot 
> set
> policy) on anything with regards to legacy space, since it is outside 
> of the realm of the RIR anyway.

I disagree. All IP address space was delegated under the authority of the

The IANA over time delegated portions of it's direct allocation authority to
the RIRs. As such, the RIRs are the rightful successors to the IANA role in
delegating that address space and just as the IANA had authority under
various RFCs listed earlier in this thread to reclaim space and assert
policy authority over the records of such delegations, that authority now
rests with the RIRs.

> If this policy refers to legacy space, then I oppose the policy on the 
> grounds that the you cannot set policy on space that is not governed 
> by the RIR structure and over which the RIR has no say and hence the 
> policy is moot.

But as I have said above, the assertion on which you base this statement is
flawed, so, as a result, so are your conclusions.


More information about the RPD mailing list